FCPX and color correction tools

A number of recent threads have touched on various aspects of color correction, including Resolve, Speedgrade, Chromatic, etc. There are correctly several good third party color correction tools for FCPX, but of course, they are hampered by the kludgy way in which developers must integrate their plug-in into the FCPX UI. It would be nice to have an integrated Apple solution with at least the horsepower they used to have in Color.

So, with that in mind, how do you think Apple should implement advanced color tools within FCPX? Let's be realistic, though. Odds are this would be a variation of the color board. So how could this work? Or should it be something like Adobe had working between Premiere and Speedgrade, where the whole timeline could flip modally between apps? Thoughts?

Personally, I think most editors may have about 5 years of truly widespread "bespoke grading" left before AI transforms the landscape. Not by removing the need to grade at the top end of the market - that will remain forever. As will the desire to employ educated colorists who can put an artistic imprint on a work. But by constantly elevating the quality of what comes out of our basic cameras and capture systems.

Even in a "mixed light" shot - AI will be auto-analyzing each pixel and imbuing it with functioning color transforms as metadata - so that you can work with the raw capture if you prefer - or a pleasingly balanced version if you prefer. And I think that type of automation is coming toward us fast.

I also think that most people who do content generation will welcome systems that eliminate time consuming visual issues as early in the production chain as possible.

I think there are third party plugins that work just fine. The price for FCP X would possibly go up if they added for fully featured color correction. Even with the purchase of third party plugins FCP X is still cheaper than the alternative.

I think Apple's happy with how 1st party color grading is inside FCP X sp they aren't going to drastically improve it. They'll leave it up to third parties. Also, AFAIK the use of the Color Board prevents any control panels from working with FCP X's native tools so that obviously creates a workflow ceiling. Even if Apple dumps the power of Color into X, the usability will be drastically hindered by not being able to use panels.

[Bill Davis]"Not by removing the need to grade at the top end of the market - that will remain forever. As will the desire to employ educated colorists who can put an artistic imprint on a work. "

I think the need for a colorist depends more on the project than on the budget. For example, creating the look the director wants on a scripted film is generally going to be more work than making footage look natural on a documentary even if the film is micro-budget and the doc is big budget. Like with most changes, the lower hanging fruit will disappear first.

With regards to AI taking over grading duties for the majority of projects five years from now... I think we'll see AI taking over many aspects of editing before we see it taking over many aspects of grading because so grading is so subjective where as a lot of editing can be very objective. For example, say we are doing a local car commercial for Bob's Auto Barn. The low hanging fruit is for AI + metadata to enable an NLE to find the broll of the Fords, Chevy's and Hondas and cut them in when Bob talks about the Fords, Chevy's and Hondas he has on the lot. When we get to the last shot, which is a wide exterior of the lot including the "Bob's Auto Barn" sign Bob says the sign is the wrong shade of red. I think that subjective subtly will be much harder for computers to effectively do autonomously. If it was in a documentary the exact shade of red of the sign probably wouldn't make a difference, but for a commercial (even a low budget one) the color is important because it's part of the branding.

[Bill Davis]"I also think that most people who do content generation will welcome systems that eliminate time consuming visual issues as early in the production chain as possible.
"

You mean like properly white balancing and exposing an image during production (or even *gasp* shooting a chip chart)? Nah, they're way too busy for that... 😉

[Andrew Kimery]"I think the need for a colorist depends more on the project than on the budget. For example, creating the look the director wants on a scripted film is generally going to be more work than making footage look natural on a documentary even if the film is micro-budget and the doc is big budget. Like with most changes, the lower hanging fruit will disappear first."

I don't know if I agree. Sometimes documentary and reality TV (or similar styles of production) are harder, because there's less control of the image in production and a wider range of [often mismatched] cameras are used. For these types of jobs, especially non-broadcast, it's pretty hard to beat what Adobe has done with the Lumetri Color panel.

I'm working on a team right now producing a fair amount of branded entertainment content and absolutely everything gets color corrected and all with the Lumetri tools. The editors are definitely expected to know how to do this, even if their work is only for approval of rough cuts by the client.

When you look at the work being done, the Color Board doesn't cut it. If we went third party plug-ins, then that would mean purchasing at least 7 or 8 licenses. Turnarounds don't permit enough time to use Resolve. So, having better color tools integrated into X would help push X into this arena.

It is rare that anything that comes out of a camera can't be improved with some color correction. I have used the FCPX color bar, Color Finale and lately Chromatic. Like Chromatic best, Color Finale next and Apple's thingy least. It is just not intuitive. So why not get CoreMelt to write a version of Chromatic that lives inside FCPX.

Note, I am hardly a Colorist, but it is quite easy to do color correction with the right tools.

[Claude Lyneis]" I have used the FCPX color bar, Color Finale and lately Chromatic. Like Chromatic best, Color Finale next and Apple's thingy least. It is just not intuitive."

As a Premiere Pro use I don't think Apple's Color Board is all that bad. It may not have been intuitive for those that have used the color wheels and curves but it does have a decent amount of CC once you learn how to use. Having said that I am not going to say it is better than what Premiere Pro has to offer.

[Oliver Peters]"I don't know if I agree. Sometimes documentary and reality TV (or similar styles of production) are harder, because there's less control of the image in production and a wider range of [often mismatched] cameras are used. For these types of jobs, especially non-broadcast, it's pretty hard to beat what Adobe has done with the Lumetri Color panel. "

Each project has its own set of hurdles, but I think doc/unscripted benefits from not having the expectation to look as slick as scripted. Shaky cam, jump cuts, blown out skies, even horrible camera moves are typically accepted by audiences because 'hey, it's real life' and the roughness adds to the authenticity. Scripted is supposed to look more polished in part because you are supposed to have more control over variables, but as well all know that's not always true (especially if you are working on lower-end projects). And many times scripted is also expected to have a 'look' where as doc/unscripted is just expected to look natural (or be an enhancement of the beauty already in the scene).

I don't know how many times I've got a scene that someone wanted to be 'moody' so they just turned off all the lights but one and left me with an under-lit face swimming in a sea detail-less black noise. WTF am I supposed to do with that? Here, let me Neat Video this scene within an inch of its life and hopefully it won't look totally offensive. Or someone's wanted the 'teal & orange' look but they didn't think to dress their set or cast to facilitate that look. No, we can't get that 'blockbuster' look because a bunch of people are wearing red, green, yellow, etc., and the room is orange. Or the shoot was done outside over the course of the day and it's very obvious that the different angles were shot several hours apart.

Ugh.

/rant

Years ago I cut a doc called "Looking for Lenny" (about Lenny Bruce's impact on standup and Free Speech) and it was all shot in SD over the course of six years (mainly Canon GL1, some random handy cam and later an HVX200). In 2012 we got distribution (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, cable/Sat VOD, etc.,) and I always joke that it was the last SD project picked up by Netflix. If we'd been an indie drama or indie action movie I think getting distro like that wouldn't have been possible because the production value wouldn't have been good enough. But for a doc people are much more forgiving.

[Oliver Peters]"I'm working on a team right now producing a fair amount of branded entertainment content and absolutely everything gets color corrected and all with the Lumetri tools. The editors are definitely expected to know how to do this, even if their work is only for approval of rough cuts by the client.

When you look at the work being done, the Color Board doesn't cut it. If we went third party plug-ins, then that would mean purchasing at least 7 or 8 licenses. Turnarounds don't permit enough time to use Resolve. So, having better color tools integrated into X would help push X into this arena."

I've been very impressed with Lumetri. For years I used Colorista for my in-NLE grading needs (both in PPro and FCP Legend), but I haven't thought about it since the second round of Lumetri updates. 6 or 7 years ago I worked briefly as a Junior Colorist for a company that did a lot of shows for HGTV and they did all their coloring inside of FCP 7 using an assortment of plugins (and sometimes just using the 3-way). If you were up to speed on the plugins they used it was certainly faster than doing the round trip to Color (prep, send the timeline, grade, render, back to FCP, hope their aren't any changes, etc.,), and easier to make last minute changes too. FWIW a few years ago they switched to Avid and Resolve.

[Andrew Kimery]" For years I used Colorista for my in-NLE grading needs (both in PPro and FCP Legend), but I haven't thought about it since the second round of Lumetri updates."

I just don't "get" the logic behind the Lumetri controls. I much prefer Colorista. Lumetri doesn't have a keyer, the vignetter can't be off-set from center - it acts like a stills color corrector adapted for video. I find Colorista IV to be worth paying for even though Lumetri is free.

[Herb Sevush]"Lumetri doesn't have a keyer, the vignetter can't be off-set from center - it acts like a stills color corrector adapted for video."

I'm not sure what you mean by no keyer. There certainly is a secondary keyer, which works exactly like it did in SpeedGrade. The rest are valid points, though.

Lumetri seems like a bit of a hybrid between SpeedGrade and Lightroom. The biggest difference from SpeedGrade is that it had a 12-way color corrector and originally no curves, while Lumetri uses a 3-way and curves. The SG team was against curves, because they are more destructive to the image than lift/gamma/gain/hue-offset adjustments, but with Adobe, they ended up adopting curves after all. FWIW - Color Finale had problems with curves, too, during their original beta period, because there's an inherent trade-off.

As far as Colorista IV, it's great that they can work within Adobe's panel structure. ☺

[Andrew Kimery]"I think Apple's happy with how 1st party color grading is inside FCP X sp they aren't going to drastically improve it. They'll leave it up to third parties."

I agree with the sentiment 100% and I am totally happy with Apple doing that. Why try to be everything to every one? Make a solid base product and vet 3rd party add-ons for those who need that. I have been playing with Resolve 14 and the experience confirms my thoughts. I would rather have BMD decide what Resolve is and focus, versus trying to be everything. Cluttered interface that, while better than R12, still "handles slowly" and crashes a lot (ok, it's a public beta). I don't need all that stuff. Perhaps you get what you pay for.

[Andrew Kimery]"Even if Apple dumps the power of Color into X, the usability will be drastically hindered by not being able to use panels."

I would love to see that power in X but I for one, and probably many many other editors, will never invest in a panel system for color correction. Simply not in my wheelhouse. I'm an editor first. Sure, I can do a little color but if I can't do it in X (or with whatever plug in), it goes to a colorist who has invested in her/his profession with panels, scopes, monitors, etc.

[Andrew Kimery]"You mean like properly white balancing and exposing an image during production (or even *gasp* shooting a chip chart)?"

[Scott Witthaus]" I'm an editor first. Sure, I can do a little color but if I can't do it in X (or with whatever plug in), it goes to a colorist who has invested in her/his profession with panels, scopes, monitors, etc.
"

Exactly my thoughts.

I can pretty much do whatever grading I'm trying to do in X and a few plugins.

I find the color board to be very straight forward and simplistic. I add as many layers as I want and I like how I can turn those off and on.

The Lumetri tools look very nice, but at the end of the day I believe I can get pretty much the same look as somebody using it.

I don't worry if somebody else has the same plugins on their computer. If it's needed for the job get it. It's not like any of these things cost a million dollars.

I like their new color and effects workspaces.

I'd prefer to see Apple add more Looks and Effects than tools like wheels.

It just seems like color correction within X is something Apple just hasn't fully implemented. For example, there are way more tools and controls in Motion. You can already build and export a more feature-rich color corrector as a Motion template using those tools (and I have) than the color board.

Plus, Apple does have a type of panel architecture, as evidenced by the slide-over access to the color board. Clearly even Apple knew it wouldn't work within the existing Inspector layout. Yet, that same UI control is not made available to the third-party developers.

[Scott Witthaus]" I have been playing with Resolve 14 and the experience confirms my thoughts. I would rather have BMD decide what Resolve is and focus, versus trying to be everything. Cluttered interface that, while better than R12, still "handles slowly" and crashes a lot (ok, it's a public beta). I don't need all that stuff. Perhaps you get what you pay for."

The GUI of DR has a a lot of customization so I think that the term cluttered is subjective. I have not been on a Mac or used FCPX in about two years but after buying my Mac Mini and FCPX I see all the problems that plagued the GUI of FCPX are still there. FCPX still has a Fisher Price Like GUI after more than six years of being in the market. As far as clutter I will have a video that will shed some light on what I think people are referring to when they say cluttered. Having said that I would not want to change the GUI of Premiere Pro for the GUI of FCPX.

[Scott Whithaus]"I would rather have BMD decide what Resolve is and focus, versus trying to be everything."

I recently interviewed BM's Paul Saccone for a magazine article. You will be pleased to know making a single tool that does edit, grade, sound and finish delivery is exactly what they are focused on doing. Adding collaborative workflow and round tripping to Fusion is exactly that idea of a complete post ecosystem. And there are people and facilities like me that do actually need that total tool set.

You make it sound like a virtue to have a less integrated tool and that somehow Blackmagic lack focus. I can assure you I have never seen focus and intent like they have in Apple, Adobe or Avid, nor their pace of development. Apple of all the developers seem to be the ones who prefer to outsource functionality. If that suits you then fine, but it doesn't show focus any more than Blackmagic. I would argue that Apple of all the companies has far less focus on fringe software like X and far more focus on gadgets that make them real money.

[Michael Gissing]"You will be pleased to know making a single tool that does edit, grade, sound and finish delivery is exactly what they are focused on doing. "

Ironically, I've shown the Resolve UI to several new users who wanted to edit some basic content. They found it to be very logical and intuitive. Of all the attempts at the all-in-one concept, Resolve is the most fully fleshed out. BMD really is coming up with something the As have never been able to achieve to date. Taking the modal approach seems to be the right direction.

[oliver Peters]"Ironically, I've shown the Resolve UI to several new users who wanted to edit some basic content. They found it to be very logical and intuitive."

GUI seems to be such a subjective area. Whilst there is always a battle between clutter and hidden levels of menu it basically boils down to user familiarity and personal preferences. I know when I first jump on new software I have to work out where functions are hidden or what icon buttons mean or what shortcuts on the keyboard I have to learn.

I sat in front of X the other day, helping an editor to export and xml and had to do exactly that. So my experience is that X was confusing and Resolve isn't. Useless subjective POV. So when X, A or A editors criticize others GUIs I do not pay much attention.

The actual color processing that Apple is doing is pretty good. There are a few things within the color board that aren't common in other color correctors. For instance, you can adjust saturation separately within the three ranges. That's not unique, but not often found.

Nevertheless, Apple could do a number of relatively simple things within the existing architecture and panel layout of the color board that would improve/enhance the product. Just a few examples:

- Add a UI preference setting to use color wheels in place of the color swatches.
- Add a luma curve window.
- Add temp/tint sliders.
- Add control of the crossovers at lows/mids and mids/highs (like in Symphony and Color Finesse).
- Add a LUT importer effect (separate from the color board).
- Enable control surface support.

[Oliver Peters]"The actual color processing that Apple is doing is pretty good. There are a few things within the color board that aren't common in other color correctors. For instance, you can adjust saturation separately within the three ranges. That's not unique, but not often found."

I agree. The color board is not that bad. It is different but it does have a decent amount of control. I would not want Premiere Pro to have the GUI of FCPX but if Premiere Pro had a color board added I would not be upset about it. Having said that I would not want to have just the color board option like the FCPX users (I know I know buy plugins).

[Oliver Peters]"- Add a UI preference setting to use color wheels in place of the color swatches.
"

I have a small problem with this.

If you give people what they expect - that's the choice they'll make 9/10 times.

If they'd given me the option of color wheels from day one - I, like many, would have just set THAT as my default and NEVER really learned the color board.

Instead, I was forced to learn something new. Something that for the type of correction I need to do most often - turns out to be significantly faster. I don't have to juggle three separate wheels for every correction.

Are you serious? To call the way the color board was designed as "innovation" is pretty hard to fathom. It's about as dumbed-down a way to deal with color as anything anyone can think of. It was nothing more than change for change's sake.

[Oliver Peters]"So let me get this straight. Choice is a bad thing? How very Apple of you!"

No Oliver, Exposing new optional ways to approach a needed task - THATs what options mean. Not having 10 programs that all use the same metaphors for color correction because someone in the 1960s (maybe with experience in circular WWII oscilloscopes?) decided three round scopes were the only proper design construct.

How very ADOBE of you.

(If you can toss a bit of friendly shade and exaggerate to make your point - I get too as well, right?)

When it comes to color wheels and color correction, that's relatively recent - or at least going back to a later versions of earlier DaVinci systems. Color correction in the 70s and early 80s largely used knobs and sliders, not track balls.

[Bill Davis]"(If you can toss a bit of friendly shade and exaggerate to make your point - I get too as well, right?)"

[Oliver Peters]"When it comes to color wheels and color correction, that's relatively recent - or at least going back to a later versions of earlier DaVinci systems. Color correction in the 70s and early 80s largely used knobs and sliders, not track balls."

The color wheel was standard when I started grading. In 1976 I was grading live to air with Rank Telecines (Mk2). They had three joysticks set in the standard color wheel, basically instead of track balls and I can tell you they were fast to get a grade but a bit twitchy for fine adjustment. They had the double speed advantage that inside the big joystick was a pot to trim black level, gamma and white. So you could have two hands on the sticks and be trimming levels & gamma while moving balance. As well as that the board had a few rotary dials to set basically LUTs for different film stocks.

Small pic and a bit hard to see but the joysticks and three wheels were similar to this.

[Michael Gissing]" In 1976 I was grading live to air with Rank Telecines (Mk2). They had three joysticks set in the standard color wheel,"

Yes, you are quite right. I forgot about the joysticks. Our Rank didn't have those and we had a Davinci panel with the knobs, which our colorist actually preferred. The early grading I did was with RCA cameras and telecines. RCA had designed color correction around RGB balance, plus 6-vector secondary color. All knobs and pots. As far as NLEs, I believe color wheels came in with Avid Symphony, IIRC.

[Bill Davis]"If they'd given me the option of color wheels from day one - I, like many, would have just set THAT as my default and NEVER really learned the color board."

What would be wrong with that?The Color Board isn't better. It is a tad bit different.

[Bill Davis]"Instead, I was forced to learn something new. Something that for the type of correction I need to do most often - turns out to be significantly faster. I don't have to juggle three separate wheels for every correction."

You wouldn't use three separate wheels for every correction in Premiere Pro either. Sometime one drop of the white balance filter does the trick. Having said that I don't see how the Color Board is faster considering you may have to invest in plugins. Even without plugins I don't see how the color board is faster. Could you please demonstrate how it is faster?

If you look at Lumetri or a plug-in like Colorista the UI real estate taken up by color wheels is the same or less than the hue color swatch in the Color Board. In fact, the scanning is more in the Color Board, because the pucks have to rest over a specific color at the neutral point. This means you must not only move it up or down, but over to the hue that you want to add to or subtract from, as well.

As you can see in this image. Lumetri's hue offset wheels and lift/gamma/gain adjustments are all there together. In FCPX, you'd have to switch between tabs.

What was that about focus? :)

FWIW - you can also stretch the Lumetri panel out for much bigger wheels. Choice. :)

[Oliver Peters]"As you can see in this image. Lumetri's hue offset wheels and lift/gamma/gain adjustments are all there together. In FCPX, you'd have to switch between tabs."

I know your response is for Bill but having said that one might be a tad bit more efficient and even have a tad bit more options but I would not say one is better than the other. I think it is more personal choice and worth mentioning. I do think the color board is easy to use and does have a decent amount of control. I am not going to bad mouth the color board but I wouldn't mind FCPX having something like the Lumetri color panel of Premiere Pro. As a FCPX user I don't want to have buy $400.00 worth of plugins. I want Apple to add more features to the FCPX program. The link below might be useful to some of you.

[Oliver Peters]"You currently have to juggle three pucks. How is that different?"

Huh? How is only needing to move only on a single axis NOT considerably different and in fact easier, especially if you're limited to using a mouse? How is having to CIRCLE your color easier, better or more efficient? It's not. Or just because everyone does it that way, so they can't possibly be wrong? It's equal at best, but even that I don't buy.

8 out of 10 times I don't even use anything more than the color board (and I have all the relevant 3rd party tools), since it is in fact by far the fastest and most intuitive… for me. After balking a bit in the very beginning, too, at the notion of a BOARD, the color board is now my favorite tool by far for primaries.

More UP… less DOWN… left right for the color angle (which isn't one). Simple click and a scroll of the mouse. Fast and precise. Though I would like at least one decimal place for the values.

Aside from maybe better/improved LUT support of sorts and maybe some tweaks, I don't expect that much is going to change. And that's a good thing imho. If I actually need curves or vectors etc., which I rarely do, I can pull them up any time. But I don't have them in my face the whole time unless I need them. That's what I call uncluttered and flexible.

[Bill Davis]"Something that for the type of correction I need to do most often - turns out to be significantly faster. I don't have to juggle three separate wheels for every correction."

I'm curious how it's faster. With color wheels you have shadows, midtones, and highlights. With the color board you have shadows, midtones, and highlights (and overall). And with the color board you have 3 separate tabs to cycle between for color/saturation/exposure. Seems like just as much, if not more, to juggle, with the color board than with a basic three way color plugin.

It's at least as serious as most of the nearly useless debate in this thread.

We're all just spitballing here, because everyone understands there's really no functional difference with how Apple lets you adjust a color parameter on a rectangle - compared to how a traditional 3 way does it with a group of circles.

It all works just fine. The rest is just contankerism writ large, IMO.

[Bill Davis]"Instead, I was forced to learn something new. Something that for the type of correction I need to do most often - turns out to be significantly faster. I don't have to juggle three separate wheels for every correction."

That's why Resolve has four wheels so you can use the fourth to control a color shift overall. Or just grab a temp or hue control. But sometimes you need to get in and have that control. Sometimes I need to switch the wheels to log not linear. Sometimes to levels, curves or HSL key and power windows that track. I have to say that the ability to grab a grade from the previous shots with a single key stroke or save a grade and quickly apply it means I can basic grade very fast. As I don't know you competency with a conventional wheels based grade tool, your faster has no reference to the experiences of others who grade for a living.

Just being fast is not doing the job for me. I find Resolve allows me to chose when to be fast and when to take time and have real control. The 'light box' view that allows me to very quickly select and set a grade across whole scenes or transfer to all instances of a interview makes things very fast. The ability to set a timeline grade or group shots into a new look to apply say a vignette makes it incredibly fast to change things to the clients taste.

Taking away the familiar is not a sure recipe to making something better or faster. Improving the functionality and versatility of the familiar might be a better bet.

[Oliver Peters]"Nevertheless, Apple could do a number of relatively simple things within the existing architecture and panel layout of the color board that would improve/enhance the product. Just a few examples:

- Add a UI preference setting to use color wheels in place of the color swatches.
- Add a luma curve window.
- Add temp/tint sliders.
- Add control of the crossovers at lows/mids and mids/highs (like in Symphony and Color Finesse).
- Add a LUT importer effect (separate from the color board).
- Enable control surface support.
"

But why? Is this just for you and your "wants"? I see no reason to make FCPX a color correction tool when viable options exist.

[Oliver Peters]"Because it will make the product better without requiring third party solutions. But I suppose most of the faithful X users don't care about that. That's coming through loud and clear on this thread!"

The other perspective, of course is that as primarily Video Editors and not Colorists - we appreciate the fact that X has all the tools necessary to put out a superfast base-graded CUT yet is not slowed down and made "heavier" but someone deciding that our software ALWAYS NEEDS to sit on top of an entire suite of bespoke colorists tools - regardless of whether a specific editor will EVER need to use them.

It's not like we can't add them as needed via Chromatic, Finale, or work through Resolve - but if we don't need that, we don't have to unnecessarily drag that stuff around all the time.

Some of us appreciate this much agility in such a light code footprint.

[Bill Davis]"The other perspective, of course is that as primarily Video Editors and not Colorists - we appreciate the fact that X has all the tools necessary to put out a superfast base-graded CUT yet is not slowed down and made "heavier" but someone deciding that our software ALWAYS NEEDS to sit on top of an entire suite of bespoke colorists tools - regardless of whether a specific editor will EVER need to use them.

It's not like we can't add them as needed via Chromatic, Finale, or work through Resolve - but if we don't need that, we don't have to unnecessarily drag that stuff around all the time.

Some of us appreciate this much agility in such a light code footprint. "

A big +1 from me, too. I'd even venture to say that that is also Apple's exact logic and reasoning behind how they've done things so far, MAY continue to and why. Whether I like or agree with it or not, or would do this or that differently, I completely understand where they're coming from and commend the overall approach. NOT wanting to win the Feature List Length Contest at the cost of bloat, instability, performance and increasingly convoluted handling, for the mere sake of appeasing the specialty needs of a minute portion of their users, whilst making matters that much worse for everyone else. Unless they can of course have both. ;)

I can choose to add what it is I need OR, even better, exclude what don't need. Basically the opposite of what others apparently have chosen to do. So, for me, to say that with X you have LESS choice, options or ability is rather backwards in the grand scheme. If you don't like the approach, that's a whole different matter and why there are alternatives.

[Oliver Peters]"Because it will make the product better without requiring third party solutions. But I suppose most of the faithful X users don't care about that. That's coming through loud and clear on this thread!"

The ol' "sheep" argument? Really? 😏
Where's the shame it not seeing need for or desiring something one personally doesn't need, or in being content with what's there? For many it's equally (if not much more) of a question of how in the end than what or if. My preferred approach as well. Not like others who apparently strive for the longest feature list, with little to no regard for actual usability.

In any case, I just finished some more extensive corrections in X, so I thought I'd come back to this while the experience is still warm in my noggin, which it wasn't as much previously.

First off, amazingly, no one here ever mentioned: keyframes! Nobody misses them? Because that is actually one of the few things I've missed from day one, yes. Not being able to keyframe a correction/grade, e.g. for changing light conditions, clearly is quite the oversight. And yes, some sort of standard automated white-balance correction seems oddly amiss also, even though I'm more than capable of doing those myself and usually do anyway. I just know that's something a lot of less experienced users need. If only the auto-balance were more reliable (and adjustable!) as far as that goes it'd be less of an issue also.

Having also gotten some custom LUTs from the cameraman, that area could also use some respective improvements/abilities as well, yes.

As far as color WHEELS are concerned? Sure, if it's, as suggested, an option and not a replacement, why not? If that makes FCP more accessible and makes fewer brains go "Ew!" and shut down because they don't get it right away, then go for it.

And would I like to have curves etc. by default? Sure. Anyone that has bought anything like Chromatic, Color Finesse et al clearly would, too! But to suggest that those that don't NEED that level of control, which I'll guarantee you is the vast majority, are somehow categorically against them or would somehow be upset if they did show up is just narrow-minded polemics. I suspect some are just afraid it'd lead to something a lá "elsewhere" where you have everything in your face all the time whether you want or need it or not, much like Bill (rightfully) argued. Something I'm sure Apple would never do anyway. As with so many other things, tuck it away by default and leave it to those that actually NEED it to pull it up. As long as it's lean and mean, which I'm sure, if anyone, Apple is able to deliver.

And yes, anything that keeps me "compatible" to the rest of the FCP world when I want and need a higher level of control along the lines of CF etc., without requiring a purchase on the side of my counterpart to collaborate, as well as anything that removes as much need (as I even have left over) for ever passing anything over to Resolve as possible, is surely welcome, too! I just don't want a Resolve in there, nor does the typical X user imho. As many times as I've heard "but I've got Lumetri!" (or whatever it is they use) in a nyeh nyeh tone, is as many times as I've seen complete confusion in that same person's face when asked how to actually use it. :P

Like I said, I think FCP already offers fully sufficient (whether super-"pro"-flashy or not) correction tools for the vast majority as it is and there are options for the rest. And with any other app on the planet, there is always room for improvement on any level. I'd e.g. just as much love to see a few things happen for audio for example as well. We'll see.

[Robin S. Kurz]"First off, amazingly, no one here ever mentioned: keyframes! Nobody misses them? Because that is actually one of the few things I've missed from day one, yes. Not being able to keyframe a correction/grade, e.g. for changing light conditions, clearly is quite the oversight."

I've got so used to blading a clip then adding a dissolve to change the correction after it that I'd forgotten about key frames!

[Scott Witthaus]"But why? Is this just for you and your "wants"? I see no reason to make FCPX a color correction tool when viable options exist."

I don't think so. I definitely want it too. I find the interface of Color Finale and Chromatic kludgey and inefficient because of the floating window which I can't find a good place for. And FCP X's Color Corrector renders so much faster. Presumably that could also be true if it were expanded with more options. Hopefully if Apple does add better color correction tools they would also add a special interface window for it.

I find the color correction tools in Apple Photos to be remarkably powerful. It's crazy to me that a consumer program has more powerful features than a professional tool.

--------------------------
Brett Sherman
One Man Band (If it's video related I'll do it!)
I work for an institution that probably does not want to be associated with my babblings here.

[Michael Gissing]"I recently interviewed BM's Paul Saccone for a magazine article. You will be pleased to know making a single tool that does edit, grade, sound and finish delivery is exactly what they are focused on doing. Adding collaborative workflow and round tripping to Fusion is exactly that idea of a complete post ecosystem. And there are people and facilities like me that do actually need that total tool set."

The big question mark I have with Resolve (and this will take years to answer) is can they make it good enough that it will get users of X, MC or PPro to switch (or put it into regular rotation for those of us that commonly use more than one NLE)? Resolve 14 in 2011/2012 would've been a very compelling option for FCP Legend users needing to find a new NLE, but in 2017 all that low hanging fruit is pretty much dried up. The NLE is really the hub of post and w/o it then the compelling aspects of Resolve's grading ability, Fairlight, etc., don't carry as much weight.

'Is Resolve good enough to do the job' is a different question than 'is Resolve good enough to get users to switch'. I know it could be a dream come true in your situation Michael, but on a broader scale I hear a lot more people talking about it than actually using it.

[Herb Sevush]"I just don't "get" the logic behind the Lumetri controls. I much prefer Colorista. Lumetri doesn't have a keyer, the vignetter can't be off-set from center - it acts like a stills color corrector adapted for video. I find Colorista IV to be worth paying for even though Lumetri is free."

I haven't used Colorista IV, but previous versions always felt a bit clunky to me in terms of their integration into the NLE (both FCP Legend and PPro). For a lot of the work I do with Lumetri it's fast adjustments uniformly across the image so a keyer or flexible vignette isn't required. Also, since Lumetri is built in I know it's always going to be there. If I'm freelancing someplace else odds are they won't have Colorista installed. I still use Colorista on occasion, but it's no longer to the go-to tool for me if I'm staying inside the NLE to grade.

[Andrew Kimery]"'Is Resolve good enough to do the job' is a different question than 'is Resolve good enough to get users to switch'. I know it could be a dream come true in your situation Michael, but on a broader scale I hear a lot more people talking about it than actually using it."

My impression of Resolve these days is that it's a great finishing tool, but not necessarily a good creative cutting (offline editing) tool. Sort of the Symphony/Flame/DS/Smoke replacement. Especially with Fusion in the mix. It would certainly benefit if it had a tighter integration with X than it current has. If you could simply "flip" your X timeline straight into Resolve, without any translation loss, that would be a wonderful thing. Start in X, finish in Resolve (no roundtrips). The best of both worlds.

[Andrew Kimery] "'Is Resolve good enough to do the job' is a different question than 'is Resolve good enough to get users to switch'.

Amongst editors that feed through to me I still have a lot of FCP7 hold outs so there is still a fair bit of low hanging fruit. Different markets will vary. Many dabble with Pr, X and Avid but it almost seems like they have waited for something better. Is Resolve that? Don't know yet but the interest will likely translate for some. They are also risk adverse which is fair enough when you are contemplating a big project. Resolve before 14 just didn't have the basic performance and features, particularly audio. Until it comes out of beta these people are just looking and talking, but the need is definitely still there.

Do they all need the grade & sound facility? No but I do have a few local film makers who are in the one man band category and so I have agreed to run a master class in two weeks where they want to learn more about grading & sound post specifically. Ironically it is the need for small operators to be able to do classy finish as well as edit that has sparked a group that have been using 7, X and Pr but are prepared to switch. Amongst that category Pr is currently preferred but they are all looking hard at Resolve14 and want to do the class. The other category is editors who consider workflow to be important so knowing they can pass on a job without translation errors is important. The very reason I set up an FCP4.5 grade and finish suite all those years ago was the frustration of editors that translation errors between systems like FCP offline/ Avid online drove them nuts. So 16 years later I am hearing the same sentiments again.

Given Resolve has only had stable beta for a couple of months I am not surprised it is mostly talk at this stage.

[Oliver Peters]"If you could simply "flip" your X timeline straight into Resolve, without any translation loss, that would be a wonderful thing. Start in X, finish in Resolve (no roundtrips). The best of both worlds."

The reality is that will never happen. Even though Apple has stopped changing fcpxml there always seems to be issues with scaling, compounding clips, funny reconnect issues and always the problems with generators like text and plugins. Also any basic grade stuff can't translate. However the charm of Resolve to Resolve is that we are down to the basics - a missing plugin perhaps or not having the font installed. It worked so well for me all those years ago with FCP jobs and I am going to be happy when those days return.

[Michael Gissing]"I can assure you I have never seen focus and intent like they have in Apple, Adobe or Avid, nor their pace of development."

Interesting, because Adobe people have told me directly last fall (and again to a colleague attending SXSW) that focus and consistency was a known issue and they are working to be better at it. Tough to do with 15+ software packages in CC.

Avid is certainly focused on their core market but struggling to be in the conversation outside of that market.

BMD seems everywhere and Resolve (to me) shows it.

Just my humble opinion based on observations, experience and direct conversations.

[Scott Witthaus]"Interesting, because Adobe people have told me directly last fall (and again to a colleague attending SXSW) that focus and consistency was a known issue and they are working to be better at it. Tough to do with 15+ software packages in CC."

And how many FCPX users use those 15+ software titles? Adobe has always been focused on offering a full multimedia solution for the web, print, the internet as well as audio and video. I like that aspect of Adobe.

What is Adobe's Core market? Is it Illustrator, Indesign After Effects or Audition? Who knows and who cares as long as the products work?

What is Apple's Core market? Is it the iPad, iTunes, the iPhone or maybe the iMac? Let me know which one is the core market. I didn't even list FCPX or Motion for a reason.

If Apple has several offerings it is totally cool but if Adobe or BMD has several offerings it is not cool?

I wish they would at the bare minimum increase the travel you need to affect color. I use a Wacom and if you blink or twitch the color board lets you make everything ugly very quickly.

I was in Priemiere the other day and was so happy with the sliders and general flow of the lumetri panel. It was very natural to have a stylus and just flip back and forth on each slider for just exposure and balancing of already pretty good footage.

FCPX is a freaking nightmare of mousing and switching between tabs. Now that you can have the inspector run the whole length of the screen they need to fix everything about how color correction happens. And No the touch bar is not the answer. (Please work with Tangent and kick BM where it hurts.)

I am still waiting for Resolve to let me map things to the panel I can afford. (Sold my elements before the new panels came out as I now understand they will never let that happen) The new BM panels are dead on arrival to me as they only work the Resolve.

[James Sullivan]"FCPX is a freaking nightmare of mousing and switching between tabs. Now that you can have the inspector run the whole length of the screen they need to fix everything about how color correction happens. And No the touch bar is not the answer. (Please work with Tangent and kick BM where it hurts.)"

[andy patterson]"[James Sullivan] "FCPX is a freaking nightmare of mousing and switching between tabs. Now that you can have the inspector run the whole length of the screen they need to fix everything about how color correction happens. And No the touch bar is not the answer. (Please work with Tangent and kick BM where it hurts.)"

I agree. The FCPX GUI needs a serious overhaul.

"

It's just had one and it's very good, it still needs some tweaks but NOT a major overhaul. PPro is just as much of a "freaking nightmare of mousing and switching between tabs."

My observations and conversations have been with Blackmagic and the team at Fairlight that I know personally and have worked with for decades. You make a good point though. If companies have issues with focus and intent because they are a bit overwhelmed by the range of software they have to develop and support, then clearly Blackmagic and Avid have the least distraction.

But lets look at it from the point of view of how each is actually developing and supporting the software. I'm sure you would struggle to defend Apple, Adobe and Avid against the development team at Blackmagic. Sure they have grown a lot in a short time and their attention is more diverse than before but in terms of how the Resolve & Fusion software has developed in the past few years, I think it fair to say BM are winning the focus and intent battle comfortably. Coming from well behind in terms of an editor they are making huge improvements in a very short time frame. After giving the AAAs a huge head start they are catching up very quickly. The latest rewrite of the engine plus the Fairlight integration is almost unprecedented by any NLE software development.

Are they there yet? For some never, for others - close and closing the gap. In areas like grading and soon audio, they will be well ahead of any NLE. If you don't see it, I suspect it is because you are happy with what you have. I was just like that when Apple killed FCP7 and I suddenly found myself in development stasis for a couple of years as there really was nothing to cover my needs. I did get CS6 to work with Resolve but I never went to CC.

I'm putting my money on BM to get well beyond Apple for many people's needs before too much longer, and with an identical price point now for a much more comprehensive package, it might even hasten the end of some NLEs.

[Michael Gissing]"
Are they there yet? For some never, for others - close and closing the gap. In areas like grading and soon audio, they will be well ahead of any NLE. If you don't see it, I suspect it is because you are happy with what you have."

Good post.

I certainly see it, but do I need it? I throw out there that the vast majority (ok, not vast but certainly a strong majority) of visual storytellers don't NEED what Resolve offers. Does the corporate guy/gal need all that? Wedding videos? Online marketing folks? Offline commercial editors? Offline film editors? I see so many people jump up and say "oh yeah, tracking masks in color correction! Curves! Fairlight mixers! Gotta have that!". For what? Are the jobs so complex that Premiere/FCPX onboard tools can't handle it? Or with a simple plug-in?

I throw out there for debate (after all, this is the Resolve/CC Debate Forum, cloaked under an FCPX title so as not to confuse anyone where it is in the list! 😉 ) that many of us try to make things too complex in the jobs we do, therefore we think we need overly complex tools. Why? Maybe it's that if the tools look complex/confusing to the outside world, that means our jobs as editors become more important. So when an elegant design like X comes along, the "complex crowd" gets in an uproar: "It can't be that simple. Just look at that interface! Why, even a high schooler can do our jobs now...". Yup, they can. So be better.

That's why my theory is that I want the most elegant tool (FCPX for me) that does the work I do without the technology or design getting in the way.

[Scott Witthaus]"That's why my theory is that I want the most elegant tool (FCPX for me) that does the work I do without the technology or design getting in the way.

OK folks, blood in the water! Have at it! 😉
"

I agree, that's exactly what FCPX seemed to be designed for, however I don't think there's anything wrong with having powerful tools on hand if you need them providing they don't complicate the basic editing interface and I think that maybe what the team at Blackmagic are trying to do.

I've done a couple of edit projects in Resolve and I've been very impressed with it.

[Scott Witthaus]" many of us try to make things too complex in the jobs we do, therefore we think we need overly complex tools. Why?"

Tools have gotten more complex because expectations have gotten more complex.

In video it used to be that the "look" was baked in, and the whole idea of "grading" was some pipe dream from the world of film. Now everyone, especially the wedding videographer, is shooting flat or raw and grading is an expectation. Same with audio - either you sent it out to Pro-Tools (if you had the budget) or else you just worried about levels. Now I am routinely asked to lower ambient background noise and remove beeping phones from the middle of dialogue and that's for the rough cut.

Tools like Mocha, Colorista and Izotope RX are essential to my day to day and 20% of my notes are about color correction and product label removal that need mask tracking. These tools allow for more choices, as shots and audio that were once unusable now become serious options.

As a 'corporate guy' who works in a large marketing group... sometimes, yes. You might be surprised at the things we're sometimes asked to fix or change. Someone might bring me an interview where they don't like the color of the lights in the background, or they want me to match the color of different camera angles from two different camera brands, or work with compressed raw footage from a Blackmagic camera, etc. I can usually handle these tasks in Premiere Pro or EA, but sometimes it's just easier to do in Resolve. Lastly, if I worked on weddings full time, I don't think I would use anything but Resolve and Fusion. ☺

Just to clarify my current round of criticism of FCPX UI. I was targeting the color board and how color correction works inside the application. I agree that the recent overhaul of the application as a whole was nice and shows some degree of making things better.

However, now that I have to apply color correction as an effect, then start tweaking means I am mousing more than I was before. having a color effect already on the clips by default was saving having to do that for every single clip which was nice. They fixed being able to change the order in which effects are applied(nice) but now I have to add an effect to start working.

There is more navigating around the color board as it is currently working then having everything lined up inside the lumetri panel. all of that time spent getting to the right tab lets your eyes adapt and undermines your ability to actually color correct effectively. (which is somewhat self defeating as that was what the we were trying to do in the first place)

The color board makes sense if you are on a tiny laptop screen sitting at a cafe but is poorly designed for grading day in and day out in a full blown grading session. I know that those are two ends of the spectrum but if one is going to stay within the app that is your current limitation that could be further improved with some more love by the development team and not crammed in from the wonderful people who make the plugins we all enjoy using. Rearrange it so that panel makers have the hooks they need to be able to manipulate more then one parameter at a time and then you have the speed ones needs to really grade. Then we can start fighting over how roles and grade managment will interact.

I want the tool to be better than it is. FCPX has come a long way and I still argue it has a long way to go before it will be on top again.

[James Sullivan]"However, now that I have to apply color correction as an effect, then start tweaking means I am mousing more than I was before. having a color effect already on the clips by default was saving having to do that for every single clip which was nice."

Not really. Command-6 brings you straight to the color board and then you can add as many corrections as you want. No "mousing".

[James Sullivan]"The color board makes sense if you are on a tiny laptop screen sitting at a cafe but is poorly designed for grading day in and day out in a full blown grading session."

FCPX is an editor first, not a "full blown grading session" system.

[James Sullivan]"FCPX has come a long way and I still argue it has a long way to go before it will be on top again."

Some like X , some like Premiere. I would say X is already on top. For me.

[Scott Witthaus]" So when an elegant design like X comes along, the "complex crowd" gets in an uproar: "It can't be that simple. Just look at that interface! Why, even a high schooler can do our jobs now...". Yup, they can. So be better."

I don't consider the FCPX interface to be all that great. In fact the GUI is one of the worst I have ever used. Having said that high school students can also use Premiere Pro CC. You can see high school student use FCPX and Premiere Pro both to make YouTube videos.

[Scott Witthaus]"That's why my theory is that I want the most elegant tool (FCPX for me) that does the work I do without the technology or design getting in the way."

FCPX works but like any NLE it could be better. Do you think FCPX has any short comings?

[Oliver Peters]"There are correctly several good third party color correction tools for FCPX, but of course, they are hampered by the kludgy way in which developers must integrate their plug-in into the FCPX UI."

While I don't have any real issue how the integration currently is (other than the best ones needing a floating window), will Apple pimp the on-board color-correction tools significantly anytime soon, rather than e.g. expand the APIs to accommodate other options and possibilities? We'll see.

When I look at an image that I want to grade, more times than not there is one color that is dominating.
Maybe it's Red, Green, Yellow. The first thing I do is grab that mid puck and slide it over to that color and subtract.

That first simple move often brings the look right into line.

After using that board for a while it hit me. They have taken the science of color and converted it into a simple math equation. You simply don't need to know much about the science of colors. (I think people should still study it, but......)

Too much blue? Subtract blue.

I notice when I look at my board, more times than not my pucks are in the minus region. Easier to take away than to know what to add.

I feel my grading is more intuitive and efficient this way. I'm not thinking of it in terms of the number of "clicks",
I'm thinking in terms of "process". I get to the look that I want quickly. Try it.

I have color finale I just don't find myself using it anymore. I end up getting exactly what I want without it.

I don't believe Apple changed from wheels to the board just to be different. I think somebody over there figured this out. I'm glad they did.

I'm not opposed to changing things in X, (You have to be about change to like X in the first place) I'm just more impressed with what "they" have come up with rather than the ideas I see on here from some.

I didn't see the skimmer, or connected clips or even the color board coming. I didn't think of those things first. They saw that before me. I guess I want more of "Their" ideas : )

[Tony West]"I don't believe Apple changed from wheels to the board just to be different. I think somebody over there figured this out. I'm glad they did."

I'm not necessarily saying they did either. However, mathematically the exact same process is occurring when you manipulate hue on the color board as when you do it on a wheel. It's simply a different virtual representation of the same color process. Obviously the Apple designers felt this was more intuitive.

Because it's simply a different UI model and not a different color process, that should make it relatively easy to add the preference option of flipping between a color board swatch or a color wheel. Clearly I'm in the minority here. I suppose I view this differently, because I do a considerable amount of color correction (generally within the given NLE) for a living.

[Oliver Peters]"I'm not necessarily saying they did either. However, mathematically the exact same process is occurring when you manipulate hue on the color board as when you do it on a wheel. It's simply a different virtual representation of the same color process. Obviously the Apple designers felt this was more intuitive."

Yes. The color board is the Cartesian interpretation of the classic color wheel (normally expressed with a polar coordinate system).

As with any design choice, there are tradeoffs. The board probably makes manipulations with a mouse easier (as the moves are horizontal and vertical), but would be much harder to manipulate with traditional dedicated color controls. The board also oversimplifies color theory: you can express "less blue" on the board, but the wheel also clearly shows why "less blue" brings "more yellow."

[Walter Soyka]" The board probably makes manipulations with a mouse easier (as the moves are horizontal and vertical)"

Well, sort of. If you grab a puck you may be moving it in any direction diagonally, not necessarily horizontal first and then vertically up or down. So effectively that's the same [or maybe even more travel] as moving a color wheel in any direction away from center. Of course, you can also get there by using the numeric controls.

[Walter Soyka]"The board also oversimplifies color theory"

Not only does it oversimplify, it actually flat out implies the wrong thing. As you know, the color portion of the color board - like most color wheels - is a hue offset control. This means you are changing the RGB color balance of a luma range within the overall image - low, mid, high, overall. So you aren't reducing red or blue or whatever as a specific color. You are changing the color cast of that image. Therefore, if your midtones appear reddish, moving the red mid puck to minus red doesn't decrease red. It shifts the balance away from red and towards blue/green. That's obvious with a color wheel, but not with the color board. Reducing saturation or changing hue of a specific color is a function of secondary color correction though a key or additional process. In that process, it makes a bit more sense.

Of course, you know all this, but I'm not sure many new editors using X understand that at all.

[Oliver Peters]"So you aren't reducing red or blue or whatever as a specific color. You are changing the color cast of that image. "

Yeah. That's what I want to do.

I'm doing exactly what you said in your OWN blog........................

"If you want highlights to be more red, then move the highlight button into the upper red area of the color swatch. This adds red tinting to the highlights of the image. If you want to make the shadows less blue, then move the shadows button into the lower blue region of the color swatch to subtract blue. "

BTW - something on the positive. I like how the color board handles saturation. Most tools only give you global saturation control, whereas the color board breaks this into low/mid/high/overall. That's important, because as you increate contrast you often also need to decrease saturation. This depends on whether processing is YRGB or RGB. Typically you'd want less saturation in the low and high ends, but maybe leave it alone in the mid-range or overall. That's a nice plus with the color board.

[Oliver Peters]"the color board is about balance and cast, not increasing or decreasing a specific color, which is what the UI implies."

It's also what you implied in that article........................."If you want to make the shadows less blue, then move the shadows button into the lower blue region of the color swatch to subtract blue."

You never mention the word "cast" in the entire article.

Also are you suggesting that Apple swap the color board for wheels or have the wheels and color board?

[Tony West]"Also are you suggesting that Apple swap the color board for wheels or have the wheels and color board?"

[Oliver Peters]"- Add a UI preference setting to use color wheels in place of the color swatches.
- Add a luma curve window.
- Add temp/tint sliders.
- Add control of the crossovers at lows/mids and mids/highs (like in Symphony and Color Finesse).
- Add a LUT importer effect (separate from the color board).
- Enable control surface support."

What I suggested was a preference toggle so a user could choose the wheels instead of the color swatch. But both would be available. For some reason folks are getting fixated on the color wheels issues. However, I also mentioned a number of other things, so there are more changes/enhancements that could be done other than a simple UI change. What about curves, LUTs, etc.?

[Oliver Peters]"[Tony West] "You never mention the word "cast" in the entire article."

Semantics."

Agreed, as it was when you brought it up with my post.

[Oliver Peters]"What I suggested was a preference toggle so a user could choose the wheels instead of the color swatch. But both would be available."

OK

[Oliver Peters]"What about curves, LUTs, etc.?"

Sure. I will take as many LUTs as they want to put in there. I will take everything on your list.

I do kind of feel for software makers who are trying to make a living filling "gaps" left by X
As X fills those, it steps on those people. apple doesn't need to make ALL the money out there, but that's a whole nother topic.

I certainly enjoy not paying a subscription. If it's going to cost me for them to add stuff that I likely won't use that often, no thanks.

It's a balance I guess. I like the cheap upfront A la carte model myself.

And after having corrected my image, how is that actually relevant information? I don't even look at the color board while changing values (or after), I look at the scopes. For me, that's the whole point. I don't have to know what the opposite of "more yellow" etc. is (even if I do) to get what I'm looking for with the Color Board. I have never heard anyone (except maybe myself) say "I need more green" as opposed to "I have to reduce the magenta", nor do I see how understanding that they're both the same is in any way relevant to the result they're looking for with the Color Board. They just reduce the magenta. Done.

From my experience the Color Board makes color correction understandable without actually understanding it (to the degree you describe) for a lot of people, nor do they need to. Which pretty much describes 99% of the people even doing "color correction" from my experience. Don't have the first clue about basic color (primary, complimentary etc. yadda yadda) , but they can correct with X in a pinch. Yes, as opposed to with a circle. See it almost daily.

[Robin S. Kurz]"And after having corrected my image, how is that actually relevant information? I don't even look at the color board while changing values (or after), I look at the scopes. For me, that's the whole point. I don't have to know what the opposite of "more yellow" etc. is (even if I do) to get what I'm looking for with the Color Board."

I guess we will always disagree on this. I think that understanding color is useful when manipulating it. I think that UI elements should signal what they do. (And as for scopes, I look forward to Apple's introduction of the vectorboard.)

I don't have some big problem with the color board. It's the same math, just a different UI. Any issues with the color board are minor in comparison to the fact that FCPX is missing some useful color tools, and the fact that FCPX requires third-party developers to jump through ridiculous hoops with their UI, and severely compromise the overall user experience.

[Oliver Peters]"Clearly I'm in the minority here. I suppose I view this differently, because I do a considerable amount of color correction (generally within the given NLE) for a living."

And there it is in a nutshell.

The perfectly reasonable desire to protect the value of something you are slready conditioned to see as the "expected" way a process should work.

It's totally understandable. Perfectly defensible. Who wants to jettison hard won knowledge and expertise unless there is a compelling reason to do so?

And if the present process is working for you why bother?

Those of us who have found extra speed, efficiency and convenience in the Color Board approach can never know if the way X does things will ever meet your needs or preferences.

But the unfortunate history of voices arguing lots of things about X being "sub standard" only to have them proved to be perfectly reasonable changes - changes that actually helped X editors work well - means it's fair to flip the narrative now.

If three wheels are superior to the Color Board by some demonstrative metric BEYOND historic conditioning and familiarity - it's on Color Wherl proponents to make that case.

[Bill Davis]"Those of us who have found extra speed, efficiency and convenience in the Color Board approach can never know if the way X does things will ever meet your needs or preferences. "

I think this all comes back to the lack of availability of control surfaces for the FCPX color board.

Trackballs are easily the most natural physical way of manipulating color wheel controls. If you have never used a control surface to see firsthand the "extra speed, efficiency and convenience" in adjusting an image with both hands, never having to take your eye off it to find a UI widget elsewhere, you have no idea how much better the FCPX experience could be.

(Of course, since the board and wheels are really two different representations of the same math, Apple could certainly support wheels on a control surface and translate the inputs to the board, but there's be a lack of visual coherence between the trackball input and the representation.)

[Bill Davis]"But the unfortunate history of voices arguing lots of things about X being "sub standard" only to have them proved to be perfectly reasonable changes - changes that actually helped X editors work well - means it's fair to flip the narrative now."

I think more often than not X users want to alter reality to make FCXP seem like the most efficient NLE ever. You have claimed you want to know how other NLE compare to FCPX. You should watch my extremely short video below to see if FCPX really is much more efficient than any other NLE on the market today. Having said that I like the color board but it would not hurt to have more color correction options in FCPX.

[Bill Davis]"It's totally understandable. Perfectly defensible. Who wants to jettison hard won knowledge and expertise unless there is a compelling reason to do so?"

Just to be clear. I've done an awful lot of grading with the color board in X, too. I'm perfectly proficient at it. However, because I also use other tools, I tend to believe that more options and more features would make it a better tool.

I'm a DP and I do some editing, and color correcting. I've color corrected with the color board, with Color Finale and now Chromatic in FCPX . I can make all of them work for me, but some work better than others.
What is missing for me in the color board is a control more granular than 'Low Mid High" when targeting areas to correct. Either Chromatic or Color Finale will display a graph where I can grab the line graphing Luma or a color and give it a tug in a direction up or down along that line. The color board is more general with the low-mid -high choices and I feel like I am more limited in correction capability than with either of the other plug ins. I can get close to a result I want with the color board, and in many case even nail it, however with the added granularity of the other tools, in sticky situations, I can really go the full distance.

In a way this whole argument should be comforting to people like me and Oliver that grade as a business. Knowing there are such deficiencies in NLE tool sets and that people are grading on computer screens with a mouse make it much easier for us to outperform both in grade finesse and also speed and efficiency using better tools and hardware.

The only time I attempted to use the X color board I immediately got it so it isn't a case of not being able to adapt or being locked into a paradigm and having no flexibility. It was just that using a mouse and trying to get speed and finesse with a mouse just isn't possible compared to a grade panel like my Tangent and Resolves extra functionality. So what this argument boils down to is that many editors just don't care about grading enough to want decent tools and that the argument about rigid thinking equally applies to X editors that don't want change from the changes they have already accepted.

As cost, speed and efficiencies seem to be an obsession in the X argument, I see the cost of Resolve (same as X), the efficiencies of their software and hardware and know that X is not in the same league when it comes to grading by any metric. So when someone like Oliver, who is better placed than most to objectively compare, points out that X should offer better grade tools, I take notice.

So what it sounds like to me you are saying is.......if you put up a downloadable ungraded image and then you put up the same image that you graded with your superior tools and skills, and then subpar X users put up their grade on your sample image side by side, your graded image is going to clearly stand head and shoulders over the others.

Yes you misunderstand. I said that I can get the shots graded faster than a mouse based system with a dedicated controller like a Tangent. Plus there will be shots that I can get a greater level of grade finesse with the Resolve tool set. So it was about efficiency and the ability to go beyond the X tool set on certain shots. Because I grade docos I commonly have to shot match completely mismatched material or poorly lit shots. I constantly need tracked power windows to bring out faces or trim down background features. I need LUTs with modern slog type cameras. I need more than RGB wheels or a board to trim mixed light. HSL keying often inside tracked power windows are common.

And when the director turns up and says what does it look like if I put a film emulator on the whole show or just one scene. Not only can I do all this but for the baasic grade I can work very fast and efficient because I have dedicated trackballs and pots and transport controls.

So what I am saying is I can basic grade faster than a typical NLE (X, 7, Pr or Avid) Avid may give me a run if you are using a panel not a mouse/ keyboard. Plus I can go so much further with tricky material which is far more common in my world than a well lit, DP'd TV or feature.

Sure a test of one or two Ok shots might not show the difference. It is the 1,000 plus shots per program that will show the size of the difference in efficiency and finesse.

"So what this argument boils down to is that many editors just don't care about grading enough to want decent tools"

You see, that comes off like you believe you have a greater commitment to your craft then me. I can assure you that you couldn't be wronger on that sentiment.

As a person that shoots for a living also, I'm looking at the entire process. I think most people would acknowledge that a greater challenge in grading comes from dealing with exposure not color. As you mentioned, trying to recover a person's face that has been under exposed, a blown out window behind the talent, or a blown out sky.

Your ability to push the material is also effected more by the bitrate the footage was shot at then your software on the backend.

What I'm taking into account here is the leap in camera technology over the years and the skill of the DP's with those incredible cameras. Camera manufactures are all touting "High Dynamic Range" for a reason. I work with people (myself included) who actually know how to use picture profiles in those cameras to the fullest extent and how to get great images out of these great cameras.

What gets to me at the back end looks amazing and what I'm doing is "tweaking up" and making subtle changes. Gone are the days when somebody comes in with their blue footage from a B & W VF.

The higher level of production you are working on, the higher level of skill from the cinematographer should equal a higher quality of footage that hits your edit bay. The less work you should have to do.

Your follow up post was more "civil".

And for the record, I give people as much respect as they give me. No MORE or no LESS.

[Tony West]"The higher level of production you are working on, the higher level of skill from the cinematographer should equal a higher quality of footage that hits your edit bay. The less work you should have to do"

I haven't found that to be a given with the advent of reality TV and reality-like productions. I'm currently posting a series that was originally shot by an experienced reality TV production unit. 5-6 days in a location. 5-6 cameras including the drones (XDCAM, FS700, DJI). Plus, there was a pick-up shoot that was mainly Alexa. So lots of camera matching issues and making up for run & gun lighting.

I've done features where both A&B cams were RED, however, they couldn't get a matched set of lenses. The difference in lens brands/types/vintages was quite noticeable, even though lighting was good.

I'm tending to find that I'm having to do more grading than I ever have had to do in the past.

[Tony West]"You see, that comes off like you believe you have a greater commitment to your craft then me. I can assure you that you couldn't be wronger on that sentiment."

The comment was not aimed at anyone specifically but to the general opinion expressed by many that X's grade board is fine for what they do and they see no reason for Apple to improve or add further grade tools. Or leave it to third parties, hence my comment that for the same base price now, Resolve is offering a far more advanced grade tool.

So given you are committed to the craft of grading, do you only use the built in board or rely on third party tools to get a result?

[Michael Gissing]"It was just that using a mouse and trying to get speed and finesse with a mouse just isn't possible compared to a grade panel like my Tangent and Resolves extra functionality."

Great. Only that this thread has absolutely nothing to do with that. At no point did anyone mention a control panel nor make it any part of their argument, let alone say that a mouse trumps a control panel or the likes. So I'd say you've missed the point entirely.

[Tony West]"… or did I misunderstand you?"

I highly doubt it. Nor do I see how anyone could have understood anything else, whether it was intended or not.

Oh, right. A full two times according to my search. But even if it were more, a panel has zero relevance in terms of quality of a grade. Because I know PLENTY of people that have jumped on the new-panel-toy-train from BMD and others and you'd still be lucky to get a correct white-balance out of them, let alone an acceptable grade. So pretending or suggesting a PANEL is actually of any substantial relevance as far as the quality of any given grade is concerned, or if the Color Board is of any use (the actual topic) or "a decent tool", is completely nonsensical…

At the same time no one suggested there wasn't any room for improvement either. Just as there is with Resolve et al. But also funny how suddenly he usual "The tool doesn't matter!!" cries can't be heard this time around either… always interesting how that works. 😏

[Robin S. Kurz] "So pretending or suggesting a PANEL is actually of any substantial relevance as far as the quality of any given grade is concerned, or if the Color Board is of any use (the actual topic) or "a decent tool", is completely nonsensical…"

You really do need to read posts and threads before commenting Robin. So angry and so wrong so often.

Others have commented on the granular nature of the board but my comments that finesse and efficiency with a mouse compared to a control panel make a difference to the ability to get a decent grade remain valid. Is it relevant to talk about control panels when debating how good an NLE is at a task like grading? Obviously yes.

[Michael Gissing]"Others have commented on the granular nature of the board but my comments that finesse and efficiency with a mouse compared to a control panel make a difference to the ability to get a decent grade remain valid. Is it relevant to talk about control panels when debating how good an NLE is at a task like grading? Obviously yes."

I agree. I also want to add that touch screens can be useful as well. I am not saying every aspect of graphic design or every aspect of audio or video editing would benefit from touch screen but it is good to have the option.

So much this. It's to the point I don't consider the legitimacy of anything he posts any longer. He's either blinded by the apple fairy dust past the point of no return, or works in such a small niche that he cant fathom why anyone would need something he does not because his needs are so simple. Completely baffling really, and sort of making these debates not fun anymore once he chimes in.

[Neil Goodman]"or works in such a small niche that he cant fathom why anyone would need something he does not because his needs are so simple. Completely baffling really, and sort of making these debates not fun anymore once he chimes in."

I think most people on here only post opinions based on their own niches, small or otherwise. It's up to you to decide the validity and relevance of peoples comments and if you really don't like someone's tone or comments then there is always the 'ignore' button. People are free to say what they want as long as it abides by COW rules

[Michael Gissing]"So pretending or suggesting a PANEL is actually of any substantial relevance as far as the quality of any given grade is concerned, or if the Color Board is of any use (the actual topic) or "a decent tool", is completely nonsensical…""

Nonsensical until your the client paying the bills. No one paying big colorist $$ is going to sit and wait for you to mouse and click your way through a grade when the guy down the street can do it with his panel in a what is probably less than half the time although the results may be similar.

Yeah, if not to say FUMING! 😂
And it's so telling to see who so happily chimes in.

[Neil Goodman]"I don't consider the legitimacy of anything he posts any longer."

Aw, gee. Where that's of such importance to me! 😢… 😏
And as opposed to your so relevant, experienced, sober input on the subject of FCP X, seeing that you have so much constructive information, experience and facts to bring to the table, unlike me. Yeah, if anyone here is "legit", then you.

[Neil Goodman]"making these debates not fun anymore"

Where you on the other hand are clearly a party and a half, spewing non-stop "fun" left and right. 😄

Funny how when you go off on your Avid tangents, you are so quick to point all perturbed to the "DEBATE" in the title of the forum (conveniently ignoring the "FCP" part) for justification if someone has a problem with it… as long as it suits your narrative, all's good. But only then of course. Such hypocrisy of a truly angry, frustrated individual, yes…
As so often, if one has no real arguments, get personal and go with the jejune, ad hominem "FANBOY!!1!" approach. Works every time. 👍🏼

[Michael Gissing]"a control panel make a difference to the ability to get a decent grade"

Still the exact same solipsism. While a panel certainly is more efficient and highly recommendable, if that's a significant part of one's work, it changes absolutely zero of the ability of whoever is using it. It's in principle no different than a scroll-wheel on a mouse for e.g. scrolling a timeline or window. But I guess using an Alexa suddenly makes you a standout filmmaker after using a GoPro for years, too. And even though Tony asked you and you negated, I guess that is in fact what you meant.

[Robin S. Kurz]"Funny how when you go off on your Avid tangents, you are so quick to point all perturbed to the "DEBATE" in the title of the forum (conveniently ignoring the "FCP" part) for justification if someone has a problem with it… as long as it suits your narrative, all's good. But only then of course. Such hypocrisy of a truly angry, frustrated individual, yes…
As so often, if one has no real arguments, get personal and go with the jejune, ad hominem "FANBOY!!1!" approach. Works every time. 👍🏼
"

Tangent's ey? Thats rich.

Id for once like you to offer something constructive other than calling every other person's idea that doesn't coincide with yours "nonsensical" .

Theres alot of talented people on here with great ideas on how to make software better, you should pay attention instead of combatting every point because it doesnt suit your needs.

[Neil Goodman]"you should pay attention instead of combatting every point because it doesnt suit your needs."

The irony and projection continues… 😂

Now if only some contribution of value on the actual subject would follow, as opposed to only jumping into threads to combat every(one's) point just because it doesn't suit your "needs" (whatever that even means)… gee, what a concept.

Your putting me on ignore would be a huge service to everyone, yes. Thanks! Much appreciated. 👍🏼

You sort of already have a lift / gamma / gain system in place, just visually different. That said they probably should have a lift / gamma / gain mode as well as their boards. Perhaps call this the advanced color panel or something. A bonus would be panel support or at least an API for panels.

Finess tools like sharpness, midtone detail, noise reduction etc are also part of grading / finishing.

Now if we'll see this... I won't hold my breath. I'd be happy with decent A/V playback first which would be required for a solid grade solution.

[Erik Lindahl]"Now if we'll see this... I won't hold my breath. I'd be happy with decent A/V playback first which would be required for a solid grade solution."

I cant speak for the other playback devices but BMD's latest driver is working pretty good so far with X. It was completely unusable before with constant crashes and black flashes..so far new one seems stable.